Clinton Zoned Out

Bill Clinton, apparently under some form of mind control or partial sedation.

[SEE:  MENA]

[A BLAST FROM THE PAST FOR YOUR ENLIGHTENMENT. July 13, 2007 The Clintons have always been both more and less than they seemed.]

BILL CLINTON: FIRST NEOCON PRESIDENT

Posted by thomaspainescorner

By Peter Chamberlin

7/13/07

Bill Clinton seems to get blamed by this Neocon administration for many things, but most of all for “losing bin Laden.” The ugly truth is that, in this case, they are probably right. Clinton’s team probably had good information on Osama’s whereabouts most of the time, since they were playing on the same team for most of Clinton’s two terms. It is becoming clear from the accumulating evidence that Bill Clinton resurrected Ronald Reagan’s Afghan strategy of using Islamist guerillas as his own covert foreign policy in Europe and other intransigent hot spots that seemed to be immune to normal diplomacy. Clinton’s foolish toying with Islamist killers is probably the spark that ignited the international jihad against America.

Those of us who are diehard “Bush haters,” like to blame Bush senior for creating Al Qaida, when he abandoned Afghanistan. The problem is, even though Bush did abandon the Afghans, it fell to the next misled president to breathe life into Al Qaida. According to Gen. Hameed Gul (former head of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence-ISI- during the war against the Soviets), when Vice President George H. W. Bush became president in 1989, he threatened to “clip ISI’s wings.” (Gul now serves as an adviser to Pakistan’s extremist religious political parties. He may also be the source of the Al Qaida rumors that it was the Israeli Mossad, not bin Laden, that carried-out the 9/11 attacks, as well as the idea of creating an Islamic Caliphate, beginning with Afghanistan and the Central Asian Republics.) After the withdrawal of the Soviets on February 15, 1989, Bush began to make good on that threat. According to author George Crile, in Charlie’s War, on September 30, 1991, the end of the fiscal year, the flow officially stopped (except for $200 million [matched by the Saudis] hidden within the defense authorizations bill for 1992). After the US abandoned Afghanistan, to attack Saddam Hussein, the ISI was left alone to manage the Afghan tribal bloodbath and civil war. Soon after the liberation of Kabul, their man, Hezb-i-Islami leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (long the main recipient of CIA weaponry) started the civil war, by firing rockets at Kabul. (The ISI later created the Taliban regime and installed them in power in 1996.)

In 1993, the stage had been set for Clinton to take over, after Bush had walked off the field. His common history with the radical Islamists began shortly after he took office, when he acceded to the demands of the Muslim governments, who were wanting to send aid to their brethren in Yugoslavia. Clinton began a covert operation with Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan, to send money and arms to Bosnia-Herzegovina. According to a lengthy Congressional report by the Republican Party Committee, published in 1997 (while the Republicans were pre-occupied with learning about the president’s sexual habits), the Clinton administration “helped turn Bosnia into a militant Islamic base,” by recruiting and arming thousands of Mujahideen through the “Militant Islamic Network.” The report then went on to claim administration “…complicity in the delivery of weapons from Iran to the Muslim government in Sarajevo.., involvement with the Islamic network’s arms pipeline… (and using Muslim “charity” groups who were) connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama Bin Laden…” [Washington Post, 9/22/96]

The result was an illegal Iran-Contra style operation which utilized Iranian militants and elements of Al Qaida in Albania some of which were under direct command of Al Qaida “number two” Ayman al-Zawahiri), to smuggle weapons and mujahedeen though Croatia into Bosnia. This secret program was later duplicated with the Kosovo Liberation Army, and again in nearby Macedonia, as well as in Chechnya. According to author and researcher Yossef Bodansky (director Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare), Clinton also used these Al Qaida offshoots against Egypt, after President Mubarak opposed Clinton’s use of force against Iraq in February 1998. Some of these Islamists, again led by Zawahiri, had tried to assassinate Mubarak in 1995. (Zawahiri had earlier gained notoriety as one of the conspirators, and spokesman, for the assassins of Anwar Sadat.) In Bosnia, the Islamists staged attacks upon fellow Muslims in order to elicit international sympathy and thus intervention. The outcomes of these actions effectively converted NATO into the Islamists’ air force, the Western press into their propaganda organs, and American troops into their proxy forces.

The Saudis provided most of the money for the covert program in Yugoslavia (just as they had matched all US funds to the original mujahedeen), the Iranians supplied the arms, and the Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) brought the “Afghan-Arab” veterans to the fight. The ISI is widely known as a surrogate of the CIA, which had created them, as well as SAVAK, the Shah of Iran’s secret police. During the Afghan jihad, the CIA used the ISI to create the drug/arms pipeline that supplied the war effort and promoted the smuggling of heroin into Afghanistan, in order to turn the Soviet troops into heroin addicts. (Echoes of Iran-contra CIA drug-running charges.) After the fall of the Soviet puppet Najibullah in 1992, the veteran Arabs took their skills back to their homelands, where they began to spread the militant disease, sharing the technical skills that we had taught them, creating local cells of “the base.”

The ISI sent thousands of the remaining jihadis to Kashmir, to wage a new covert war against India, after the alarming series of nuclear tests which both countries had just conducted. ISI seeded thousands of their own paramilitary forces in with the mujahedeen, to lead the fight in the disputed territory. How can we possibly tell the Taliban and Al Qaida from the Pakistani undercover ISI agents? For that matter, is there even a difference? Who is to say if “Al Qaida” is not really just another Pakistani covert operation? Bin Laden himself never used the term before 1999. In 1998 he created the “International Islamic Front for Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders.” According to former agents of the French secret service, “al Qaida” (”the base” in Arabic) was the name for a database of an early version of the Internet that had been created by Saudi Arabia, for families of the Afghan mujahedeen to use to communicate with their honored “freedom fighters.” Did Al Qaida originate as a generic name for the entire Islamic mujahedeen support network?

The ISI did not create “the base” (the mujahedeen network) by themselves; it was created by the Saudis under the supervision of the CIA master planners. Were the Pakistanis working with Al Qaida on 9/11? If not, then how were the terrorists able to coordinate their attacks with American war games? Who helped them to pre-wire and precisely time the secondary explosives in the buildings? Was the ISI still in the employ of the CIA in 2001? How could the ISI or Al Qaida have managed to “stand down” the protective fighter bubble, that should have prevented the later attacks, if there was no one on the inside to hobble those defenses?

There are far too many discrepancies in the “official versions” of these events, and in the war on terrorism as well, to allow the cover-ups to continue. President Bush has based the Iraq war and the war on terrorism on a series of cover-ups—a cover-up of the truth about the “Iraq threat” following an even bigger cover-up of the cycle of endless retribution with the Islamists over our shared secret history. Bush has followed the deadly path blazed by Clinton, seeking to revive his lost wars and to force his version of diplomacy upon a targeted Muslim population. Unlike Clinton, Bush is trying to fight multiple wars using the Sunni terrorist network (Al Qaida the base), to create multiple civil wars and to ignite a regional religious civil war. Bush is a lost man, multiplying his failures in hopes of ending up with something that resembles victory in the end product.

Bush has breathed new life into the American/Saudi/Pakistani Islamist network as the foundation for his covert war against Iran. He is using Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as bases of operation, from which to train and launch trained Sunni terrorists into Iran. What are the ramifications of bringing the ISI into the Iraqi and Afghan conflicts? Could the ISI be to blame for the sudden avalanche of “irrefutable proof” being offered of Iranian weapons in Sunni hands in Iraq and Afghanistan? That “proof” was the basis for yesterday’s Senate vote to accuse Iran of waging war against American forces. The events on the ground in Afghanistan and in Pakistan speak volumes about Pakistani veracity as our partner in the war on terror. Thanks to them, the Taliban may be on the verge of victory in both of those countries. Afghanistan and the tribal provinces of Western Pakistan could probably be cleansed of most Taliban by repeating the carpet-bombing campaign of 2001, but both countries would choose Islamist governments in democratic elections. A hostile Islamist government in Islamabad would have nuclear missiles with which to carry-out their retribution.

The next president has the awful task of unwinding this tangled mess. If he has any chance at all of accomplishing this task, it will not be by continuing the failed policies of Clinton and Bush. They took Reagan’s violent, though successful policy of working with Islamic extremists and tried to co-opt and use the Islamists for very un-Islamic tasks. Bush has exacerbated the repercussions of these manipulations by turning a struggle to bring a few thousand Al Qaida terrorists (whoever they really were) to justice into a “clash of civilizations” against all of Islam. This has proven to be a powerful Islamic recruiting device.

The next president will have to deal with empowered Islamists without being so quick to resort to bombs. He will have to try to reason with extremist Islamist governments. The next president will have to act reasonably, as well. This means that we cannot elect another extremist president ourselves, unless his extremism is in defense of the Constitution and the people it defends, which includes defending the “inalienable human rights” of all people. He must be a man who will defend America against those who call themselves “Americans,” while doing so many bad things to so many people.

Washington Wants Islamabad to “Own” Predator Attacks, Admit to Identical Goals

Islamabad urged to concede its ‘tacit approval’ of drones

The attacks would not have taken place if it were not for the tacit approval of Pakistan’s leadership, Senator Carl Levin said. —Reuters Photo

WASHINGTON: The drone attacks are creating new tensions between Pakistan and the United States as US lawmakers urge Islamabad to accept the responsibility for approving the strikes.

Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told a recent congressional hearing that the attacks would not have taken place if it were not for the tacit approval of Pakistan’s leadership.

A transcript released on Thursday quoted several US lawmakers as telling the Senate Homeland Security subcommittee that the US administration should urge Pakistan to accept the responsibility for their share in the attacks.

The United States relies heavily on unmanned aircraft to target militants but such strikes also cause an excessively high number of civilian casualties. Official Pakistani sources say that since 2006, the drones have killed only 14 militants and over 700 civilians.

But Senator Levin told the panel that the official Pakistani reaction had hamstrung Washington. ‘For them to look the other way or to give us the green light privately and then to attack us publicly leaves us, it seems to me, at a very severe disadvantage and loss with the Pakistani people,’ he said.

US Deputy Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Paul Jones told the panel that the US administration was developing a new strategy to reduce tensions stoked by drone strikes.

When Senator Daniel Akaka asked Jones to comment on the drone controversy, Jones said he could not discuss the issue in a public hearing.

But, he added, ‘a very important part of our strategy is strategic communications.’ He went on to say that in the PR sphere, ‘we’re making some progress.’

The United States plans to ‘increase quite significantly’ aid to Pakistan to help the government with its own communications strategy, Jones said. That includes distributing radios to Pakistanis in the tribal areas and helping the government of Pakistan with public service announcements.

Such programmes ‘will help people understand what the goals are of the Pakistani government and the international community, and how they are helping the country of Pakistan,’ he said.

Allowing the drone attacks

Allowing the drone attacks

Dr Masooda Bano

The US is continuing to launch drone attacks in the tribal belt of Pakistan. The increased frequency of these attacks confirms that they have all along taken place with the consent of the Pakistani government, as well as the army. In the last five days alone two drone attacks have resulted in more than thirty casualties. These are in addition to the casualties resulting from the aerial operations carried out by the Pakistani forces. And finally there was the helicopter crash, which was a major loss for the Pakistani forces. There is relative quiet on the legitimacy of these drone attacks. Like most other activities carried out by government officials in Pakistan, which are officially illegal, the US drones attacks now create little resistance within the Pakistani public because in some way everyone is becoming used to them. It is no longer an exceptional event; it is in fact a matter of daily routine. Why Pakistan should stand at a point where violation of its sovereignty by another nation should be so easily accepted by its civilian and military elite is however a question that requires serious thinking.

The question is, why has the Zardari government and the military given the US forces rights to carry out of these drone attacks within Pakistani territory? Is the decision based on some strategic calculation of Pakistan’s security interests or is the answer the same as was admitted in General Musharraf’s memoirs–i.e., that the Pakistani government was paid handsomely for providing the US a free hand in fighting its “war on terror” in Pakistan, be it in the form of handing over Pakistanis to the US agencies without protecting their basic right to provide them a trial within Pakistan or leaving the Pakistani boundaries undefended against US military attacks. The quite acceptance of these drone attacks, above all, leads to the uncomfortable realisation that the grand plan for fighting the militant resistance in Pakistan is actually still scripted by the US. The Pakistani government or the military is failing to develop or dictate the strategy to deal with the growing militancy in the area.

This in turn raises the question as to how the government had decided that this borrowed strategy will deliver in terms of curtailing militancy in Pakistan. The US has failed to control Afghanistan despite being there for over seven years now. The NATO forces are tired, can’t find a way forward, and are desperate to minimise their losses. How can the Pakistani government assume that allowing the US forces to expand the same strategy, which has failed to secure Afghanistan, will deliver in Pakistan? If the Pakistani government was to take the plea that it is handing over the responsibility of protecting its borders to the US while it focuses on making a serious investment in improving the development conditions in Pakistan, one could still find a rationale for giving up one’s territorial sovereignty.

However, when the government continues to drain the national wealth in the supporting a large army and has its energy primarily focused on planning military interventions within its own country then the question is that what good is this investment if it is deviating energies from serious planning on long-term educational and development needs of the public and at the same time is not being able to protect the country’s territorial boundaries. There has to be some limits set to what rights foreign powers can be allowed within a country’s territorial boundaries. It might be desirable to rely on government-issued statements and assume that the victims of drone attacks were terrorists. How can such claims we so easily trusted when the record of the personal morality of the officials making these claims is as weak as is visible in the case of Pakistani civilian and military elite.

What is most ironic is to recognise that such critical decisions about future of Pakistan and lives of Pakistanis are taken by military generals and civilian figures that are so petty in their daily dealings. Mr Shaukat Aziz supposedly had earned enough as a senior official at City Bank to not ideally need to have to walk away with all the gifts that he was given in his official capacity and should have been deposited in the state treasury. General Musharraf similarly in the eyes of his western supporters was a man of high moral character committed to development of Pakistan. His reality however was that he could not even resist the temptation to accumulate the gifts given to him in his official capacity; he therefore chose not even to report having received them. When people with such petty wishes end up making such critical decisions about the future of the sovereignty of this country and give orders for military operations that result in countless civilian deaths, who can be sure that the motives for those orders were what they were claimed to be.

The writer is a research fellow at the Oxford University. Email: mb294@hotmail .com

New “Al-CIA-da” Crybaby Disinformation About Spies and Fear of Airpower

[This book is the greatest endorsement of CIA covert policies in Pakistan ever written. The words of this alleged “Islamist” have “made in Langley” written all over them.  Oh, look!  America’s bombers have “al Qaida” wetting their pants, afraid to go to sleep at night, afraid that everyone is an agent of the master spies who have, until now, failed to get anything right.  Bull S–t!]

New Al Qaeda book on ‘Muslim spies’ released on internet

DUBAI: A new book published by Al Qaeda shows that the terrorist group is under intense pressure and in “deathly fear” of U.S. counterterrorism efforts in Pakistan, terror experts say.

The 150-page book, titled “Guide to the Laws Regarding Muslim Spies,” was recently posted on jihadist Web sites. It was written by a senior Al Qaeda commander, Abu Yahya Al-Libi, and features an introduction by Ayman Al-Zawahri, the No. 2 man in Al Qaeda.

The book accuses some in Al Qaeda’s ranks of being spies who provide intelligence, including information about Al Qaeda camps and safe houses, to U.S. forces. According to the book, these “Muslim spies” have allowed the U.S. to use its Predator drone campaign to paralyze Al Qaeda leadership.

“It would be no exaggeration to say that the first line in the raging Crusader campaign waged by America and its allies against the Muslims and their lands is the network of spies, of various and sundry sorts and kinds,” says the book, translated by the Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI

“Their effects are seen: carnage, destruction, arrest, and pursuit, but they themselves remain unseen, just like Satan and his ilk who see us while remaining unseen.”

Terror experts have called the book unique in its weak and worried tone.

“I haven’t ever seen this kind of language from senior Al Qaeda commanders before,” said Daniel Lev, who works for MEMRI. “In general, Al Qaeda speaks in a very triumphant tone,” but in the new book Al-Libi speaks of the group’s dire straits and serious problems, Lev added.

“Such an admission of distress on the part of a senior Al Qaeda commander makes this a very unique book in terms of the author.”

“They are in deathly fear of airpower,” said McInerny, a retired lieutenant general in the U.S. Air Force. “Whether it’s unmanned drones or whether it’s fighters or bombers using precision weapons, they are deathly afraid.”

The books also displays a deep-seated paranoia of hidden enemies, according to MEMRI. It claims that anyone — from the old and infirm to the imam of a mosque — could be a U.S. spy.

“The danger of these spies lies not only in the ability of these hidden ‘brigades’ to infiltrate and reach to the depths,” the book says.

“They include the decrepit, hunchbacked old man who can hardly walk two steps; the strong young man who can cover the length and breadth of the land; the infirm woman sitting in the depths of her house; the young woman whose veins still flow with youth; and even perhaps the prepubescent adolescent who has not reached the age of legal maturity [in Islam].”

Lev, of MEMRI, said that the group’s suspicions could be used as an excuse to conduct a purge, which could further harm the Al Qaeda’s stature in Pakistan.

“In the situation that they’re in, they’re entirely dependent on the natives, on the Pakistanis and the Afghans, and they definitely do not want to be facing a situation like Al Qaeda in Iraq, where you have the tribes turning on you,” he said.

“That can be the beginning.

Eritrea: Statement By the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

[SEE: Israel’s second largest base is on Eritrea’s Dahlak Islands]

Eritrea: Statement By the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Asmara — The Spokesman of the State Department announced yesterday that the United States will deliver a new consignment of arms to a “government” that is devoid of any legitimacy and whose control does not extend beyond few neighborhoods in Mogadishu.

The Spokesman also alluded, in a passing remark, to his “concerns” on the role of Eritrea in Somalia.

These pronouncements do not contain novel or substantive elements. Nonetheless, the Government of Eritrea is obliged to repeat well-known facts on the situation in Somalia in order to put the record straight.

The crux of the problem underpinning the crisis in Somalia does not, and has never revolved around, the issue of extremism or non-extremis. It squarely revolves around the overarching issue of the existence or non-existence of a sovereign

Somali State. Oversimplification of the problem and its wrong portrayal as a contest between extremist and non-extremist forces is thus neither sincere nor warranted by the facts on the ground.

// <![CDATA[// // <![CDATA[//

To accept a fragmented Somalia as an accomplished fact and to forcibly install, without the consent and choice of the Somali people, “governments” who bear various labels and mantels, in the neighborhoods of “Mogadishu” and “Baidoa” cannot be legal by any standards. These approaches will not also contribute to a solution of the fundamental problem. As it is patently clear, no power in the world is above the rule of law. As such, no one can forcibly install a

government of this nature in contravention of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. Furthermore, and as it is sadly attested by events in the past years, this course of action is fraught with destructive consequences.

These are the indelible facts. In the event, the Government of Eritrea has not recognized in the past “governments” imposed through external interferences and that ran counter to the legal and political realities in Somalia. And, it shall not do so in the future. In our view, if the yardstick is legality and accepted legal norms, no other government can indulge in unwarranted recognition of such “governments”.

The Government and people of Eritrea have the right and obligation to extend their moral and political support to the people of Somalia on the basis of these standard legal principles; and, in order to advance the choice of the Somali people, the continued existence of a sovereign Somalia and to put an end the enormous suffering of the Somali people. To distort the stance of the people and Government of Eritrea, and to use it as a pretext for illegal acts, will not only aggravate the crisis in Somalia but it will also be futile and counterproductive.

US misguided acts of intervention and supply of weapons have not, in the past years, advanced the cause of stability in Somalia. A repeat of those measures will not produce positive results but only aggravate and prolong the crisis.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Asmara

26 June 2009

Somalia: U.S. Ships Small Arms, Munitions to Govt

Somalia: U.S. Ships Small Arms, Munitions to Govt

The value of the military aid totals less than U.S. $10 million, the official said, and it comprises weapons for use “in an urban environment, fighting a counter-guerilla insurgency.”

The unnamed official revealed limited details of U.S. military assistance at a briefing of journalists at the U.S. State Department in Washington, DC on Friday. The briefing was arranged after the State Department’s spokesman confirmed on Thursday that the U.S. is providing arms and

ammunition to the Transitional Federal Government (TFG).

The transcript of the briefing published by the department described the briefer only as a “senior State Department official.” Reporters present wrote that the briefing was held under ground rules requiring that the official remain anonymous.

The official told journalists that the military assistance was being provided through Ugandan and Burundian peacekeeping forces.

“We’re essentially doing two things,” he said. “We have provided funds for the purchase of weapons; and we have also asked the two units that are there, particularly the Ugandans, to provide weapons to the TFG, and we have backfilled the Ugandans for what they have provided to the TFG government.”

Pressed on what the aid was worth, the official said “at this point, it’s certainly under $10 million.” It had “substantially increased” since the beginning of the assault on the TFG launched by the al-Shabaab militia early in May.

“The extension of funding directly to the TFG is consistent with our efforts and support to help the TFG as much as possible to gain stability in the region,” the official said.

Somalia: Official Asks For Immediate Intervention

Somalia: Official Asks For Immediate Intervention

June 20, 2009 | 1338 GMT

Somali Parliament Speaker Sheikh Aden Mohamed Madobe has asked his country’s neighbors to send troops to the restive country within 24 hours to assist the Somali government, Reuters reported June 20. Madobe said Somalia is asking for immediate outside intervention because of escalating violence. Madobe said rebels in Somalia are being led by a former Pakistani army general. A leader from the rebel group, al Shaabab, warned Kenya against intervening, saying if Kenya does send troops “we will attack Kenya and destroy the tall buildings of Nairobi.” The violence has led thousands to flee the Somali capital, Agence France-Presse reported. Many fled to Afgooye, an uncontested Islamist-controlled area on Mogadishu’s outskirts.